Hello everyone On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Dan] > And I realize you can both say that it is only my interpretation of the MOQ > and that your interpretation is just as valid. I think Arlo recently argued > that point with me. > > [Arlo] > To clarify, I specifically (and repeatedly) have argued AGAINST the > "interpretist" take. But I must've not made my point well, since you seem to > be attributing the very opposite to me.
Dan: I apologise if I've misread your words. In our last discussion, you seemed to be saying all interpretions are equal. But I'd have to go back and re-read the posts. You seemed to be arguing for some sort of "interpretive legitimacy" that I didn't agree with. But again, it may well have been my mistake. >Arlo: > You also use this word, "interpretation", below in away that bothers me. > > [Dan] > Your interpretations run contrary to what the MOQ is saying. And as long as > they do, they are not high quality interpretations of the MOQ. > > [Arlo] > What you are saying, is that for "interpretations" to be "high quality" they > cannot run contrary to what the MOQ is saying. This is a peculiar use of > "interpretation" because the very allowance for "interpretation" is that we > don't know "what the MOQ is saying" apart from some or such other > "interpretation". Dan: Now, this is where I see you arguing for some sort of interpretive legitimacy that stands above and beyond "what the MOQ is saying." It was my point that the MOQ speaks to us, although not in the sense that it says: hey Dan! hey Arlo! how ya doing! >Arlo: > You could remedy this, I think, by using "representations" in place of > "interpretations" at the end of the sentence, as such. > > Your interpretations run contrary to what the MOQ is saying. And as long as > they do, they are not high quality representations of the MOQ. Dan: So interpretations are actually representations? >Arlo: > This makes more sense, as it agrees with your stance that there is one MOQ > and deviations from this are "interpretations" and not accurate recounts of > "what the MOQ says". > > But again, if you restate your sentence with "Pirsig" replacing "the MOQ", > maybe you can see this clearly. Dan: But wouldn't that just be RMP doing the interpreting then? How is that different than, say, dmb or Ant doing the interpreting? >Dan: > Your interpretations run contrary to what Pirsig is saying. And as long as > they do, they are not high quality interpretations of Pirsig. >Arlo: > Let me ask you this, do you think there is any difference between > "restating" and "interpreting"? Dan: Yes, I think there is a difference. Arlo: Because you seem to saying that only > "restatements" are high-quality "interpretations", and that's conflating two > distinct words. Dan: Well, you are the one who is saying interpretions are representations. Isn't a representation basically a restatement? >Arlo: > A "restatement" would be phrasing what Pirsig said in new words, with no > loss of meaning or alterations in intent. Is this what you think > "interpretation" is? Dan: Well, the difficulties of language sometimes makes it nearly impossible to restate something without adding to or detracting from the meaning of the original statement. So I am not sure if there is a correct answer to your question. We all interpret the world according to our own individual experiences, and that includes the MOQ. But there are high quality intrepretations vs low quality interpretations of both the world and the MOQ. Is that what you're asking? Thank you, Dan Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
